It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One in Eight U.S. Biology Teachers Teaches Creationism

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
It takes more faith to believe there is no God and that there is evolution than it does to believe the opposite. The greatest atheist of the 20th century has now agreed that the universe must be designed by a higher intelligence.




posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by apaulo
 




Now, you cannot tell me that THIS was ALL an accident!
It would be easy for me to believe that Leonardo da Vinci bumped his easel and palette, knocking them over on the ground and spilling paint onto a canvas that just so happened to create the Mona Lisa. Come on! I don’t care how many millions of years a blank canvas lays around, it will never produce the Mona Lisa either.


This is a common logical fallacy: I can't imagine it so it cannot be true. Thankfully, reality is not constrained to exist within the limits of our comprehension or our comfort with it. In other words, just because one does not possess the faculty to understand a complex system does not mean that they do not exist. The world does not cease to exist when a child closes their eyes!



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
There's nothing wrong with teaching Creationism in a Biology class. I remember when I was in school we were taught both. Really, if we can accept things like Conspiracy Theories, Cryptozoology, Paranormal, UFOs, etc. etc. why is it so hard to believe in a more intelligent mass of energy that caused us all to evolve into what we are now? We're all made up of nuclear particles, you don't need to physically see one to believe that. Who's to say what we view as "God" isn't a sentient mass of energy that can create something out of nothing by manipulating these nuclear particles to grow into a tangible mass? I find it highly unevolved to think in such unilateral lines as to have to choose between Evolution and Creationism. Why can't we settle on believing in both?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
We live in a solar system that appears to be approximately 4.7 billion years old. We share DNA with Earth’s plants and animals. Homo Sapiens emerged about 500,000 years ago. Creationism teaches that the Earth was born October 23rd of 4004 BC. (According to Bishop Ussher of the 17th century). Creationism is simply born of a literal reading of the Bible, and is rejected my most intellectual Christians.
Bishop John Shelby Spong makes several points in "Saving the Bible from Fundamentalism" He states, "It is not a new crisis. Tension has existed between the church and scientific community for hundreds of years. Galileo was excommunicated for his suggestion that the Earth was not the center of the created order... People like Bishop Samuel Wilberforce and his modern day descendants, called creationists, were sent into orbit as they tried to neutralize the impact of Charles Darwin. This tension has increasingly resulted in an anti-intellectual approach to Christianity on the part of literal-minded, conservative Christians..." see p. 9
"Can Modern men and women continue to pretend that timeless, eternal and unchanging truth has been captured in the words of a book that achieved it's final written form midway into the 2nd century...AD? Would not such a claim be dismissed as ludicrous in any other branch of human knowledge"? see p.15.
In "Jesus for the Non-Religious" Bishop Spong states: "Can we lift the theistic God overlay from the life of Jesus and still be Christians? I believe we can. Indeed, I believe we there is no other alternative if we want to live as Christians in this 21st century." See p. 224
The battle is not between Christians and evolutionists. Only those Christians who insist that every word of the Bible is the truth maintain belief in the absurdity known as Creationism.
A thorough reading of the texts referenced might enlighten most fundamentalists. However, denial is a powerful force in closely held belief systems. Many Fundamentalists will be too afraid about losing their theistic security systems to read an intelligent assessment of the Bible.
In sum, rather than to accept truth evolving from scientific research, creationists appear to engage in a quest for security. God is about love, and isolated scriptures of hate and ignorance cannot be the “Word of God.”



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Reptilian_Queen
 


The matter in dispute is that it is being taught in science class, not that people are or are not allowed to believe in either or none.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
What is the approximate total number of the successful mutations to the genomes of the extremely complex organisms in our heredity line?



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 



What is there to take back? Do you also wish to remove da Vinci's name from the Mona Lisa?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Evolution is contrary to the universally accepted second law of thermodynamics, everything is actually running down not getting better as evolution teaches just like a cup of tea gets colder.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 04:30 PM by vehemes terra eternus

"We are still evolving. Look at the various races from around the world, you must see the pattern. Near the equator = dark skin, away from the equator = light skin. Underneath it all they are made up of the same flesh bone.

It will take a while but eventually, after/if many generations are continuously immersed in a digital world like that of today, we will grow larger brains and smaller bodies. Unless gene manipulation comes into play, which IMO probably will at some point."

Sorry, none of that is evolution. It is adaptation.
We won't speciate due to staring at computer monitors.

You are implying whites are more evolved than Africans. Is that what you are implying? Must be, cause if I follow your logic then all humans trace their roots back to one woman living in Africa. So the farther away in time and distance from her we go more "evolutionary" processes have taken place and thus Anglo-Europeans must be more evolved. Sounds like you are racist to me.




reply posted on 27-5-2008 @ 09:27 PM by wytworm

"Ever hear of the appendix? Wisdom teeth? Your little toe? All are considered to be vestigial and will be gone in succeeding generations."

Sorry that is incorrect. An appendix holds necessary bacteria for the immune system and maintaining gut flora. Wisdom teeth are not vestigial they chew food just as good as all other dentals. The little toe is vestigial? How?

"It is a term for the fact that entities that are better suited to an environment tend to produce more offspring. Because they have an advantage."

No, they tend to produce less offspring. A species under stress and unfavorable conditions tend to produce more as an insurance that some will survive.


Annee, I love your gramma, she has common sense ;-)


I find these discussions so entertaining. Science does not follow it's own rules when it comes to evolution. And religion is saying it has nothing to prove because it is all gospel. Good stuff.
Please continue ad infinitum.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.


Would it be too much to ask to use the language we all agreed upon.
i.e.
Scientific Theory = In scientific usage the term theory is supported by experimental evidence, is observable, predictable, logical, and testable.
see scientific method.

Theory = In common usage it means conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis.

So when speaking of a scientific idea like evolution one must first ask has this been tested and observed. If it has then yes it would be correct to refer to it as a theory. Since no one has ever observed, tested, and repeated evolution it would be unwise to call it a theory.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I liked the question about why we are not evolving today.
Simply we never did. Show me something evolving into something else, not in the past desperately using fossils, but today, right now. Pick any animal that has been around for millions of years, it should be ready today to evolve. Take an alligator, it has been in existence for long enough to have acquired mutations or whatever it supposedly takes to trigger these spontaneous developments. Why don't we see them producing hybrid offspring of some new radical species. Simple they can't. They are biologically and genetically prevented from such. So is every living organism. Remember, OBSERVABLE, REPEATABLE, TESTABLE. show me the test for evolution, show me the observations of evolution, show me how you repeated this evolutionary process and you will truely have a theory. If you can then you are a god. I'll be first in line so you can give me or my progeny another arm so I can scratch my head while reading some of these posts.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.


Also kudos to the bones are not evidence of evolution argument.
Old chimp bones are just that, old chimp bones, not some missing link.


I keep hearing bacteria are evolving due to the use of antibacterials.
Wrong, we are just killing the ones susceptible to said antibacterials and thus leaving a population which was resistant to begin with, which in turn produce more copies of themselves which are resistant. No evolution.

"DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins." (Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, cilt 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348)


evolution requires an original miracle of stupendous proportions, suspends the laws of science (including cause and effect, conservation of mass and energy, entropy, biogenesis, DNA self-repair, lethal mutation damage) and invokes a continuous succession of miracles against all scientific observations.

The tenets of evolution are insisted upon against overwhelming and impossible odds, and its justification exists only in the minds of its adherents.



"When evolution is said to be a fact, not a theory, what is actually meant? That now-living things have descended from ancestors, with modification, over time? Or that the modifications came by chance, not by design? Or, in addition, that all living things ultimately had the same ancestor? Or, still further, that the `first living thing' had as its ancestor a nonliving thing? Context indicates that when evolution is asserted to be a fact, not a theory, the view actually being pushed includes that of common origin, ultimate inorganic ancestry, and modification through nonpurposive mechanisms: a set of beliefs that goes far beyond the mountain of fact that is actually there, which consists largely of fossils that demonstrate some sort of relationship and some sort of change over time." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago IL, 1994, p.65).



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.


"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

It has been said that without the study of evolution we would not have modern medicine, I say "now I know why they can't cure the common cold!"



Sir Fred Hoyle remarked that:

scientific challenges to evolution have “never had a fair hearing” because “the developing system of popular education [from Darwin’s day to the present] provided an ideal opportunity...for awkward arguments not to be discussed and for discrepant facts to be suppressed.”


omne vivum ex ovo



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ezziboo
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Well BigBert, I certainly agree with you on this issue...if included in science curricula, religious dogma concerning creationism should be offered as just that...dogma, which should not be allowed to supplant the ample scientific facts & evidence of evolution.



[edit on 26-5-2008 by ezziboo]


What ample Scientific facts? I hear this all the time as the mantra of Darwinian evolution yet fail to see any mountain of evidence. Speaking of dogma, if Darwinian evolutionists had their way, it would be unconstitutional to even question the TOE.

This is a theory so damn insecure about being put under any other kind of scrutiny but that of its clique of Atheist Supremacists they resort to cloak and dagger schemes that have raised the eyebrows of officials all the way to top Government and were busted for it.

This wouldn't be the first time Science or to be more specific Evolution "Science" has done things so unethical if not criminal, from manufactured evidence to fabricated data and espionage, just to keep that silly theory from being tested and falsified .

From the scopes trials where fake evidence Clarence Darrow used to lend credibility to the TOE where the trial should be made a mistrial to the Dover trial where it was later discovered the ACLU had written the judges statements over a month before the trial had got there.

Even the statement making the claim ID is not Science was written by the ACLU the judge not even aware of bias he was about to make is now looking disgraceful.

Their seems to be no line the Darwinian atheist evolutionists won't cross to hang on to the thread of what is left of that archaic pathetic theory where the dogma is so rooted in the anti religious prejudice of Atheists towards Christians, even the slightest mention of phenomena showing intelligence behind its existence is immediately discarded as "bad evidence" .

These Darwinian evolutionists are nothing more than zealots of of their own religion without a Deity masquerading as Science while claiming religion has no place in science when no religion has ever stepped up to step in and give a sermon.

The moment intelligence is brought into the spectrum of Science the fear of religion grabs the Atheist influence in this domain and that same influence castigates the discovery or mere postulate of the idea and rubs it out with extreme prejudice with wilful want and disregard for the advances that discovery might have made.

If their is an intelligent life form that started this place we live in or perhaps had a hand in our being here, I would think Science would want to know about it.

Rather than see the possibilities in that, they have the fear of the Christian God put to them and attache all possibilities of some age old argument between Atheism and Christianity to it where the very last thing they would ever do is give their Nemesis, their arch enemy and biggest adversary the slightest chance for saying "I told ya so".

This form of discrimination towards the Christian isn't about religion and as a Christian, I submit, it isn't about Jesus Christ for if Science discovered an Intelligent influence than Science would be compelled to know what or who it was. No matter who or what it was, Be it the God of the Bible or some Alien, I would be more than willing to accept that possibility if Atheist Darwinian Evolutionists would be willing to accept it also.

I think they would too. Even Dawkins has been expressing some doubts here and there about this very possibility and that maybe he was wrong about his stand on natural selection. I know Big Whammy has posted reference to that and perhaps he might update us on more. He does a lot more research on it than I do.

I think the idea of losing the argument gets in the way of real objectivity and while Science talks a good game about the Scientific Method being so drop dead accurate, it is so dependant on the integrity and honesty of a Science elite that has definitely proven it can not be trusted and is not seen as trustworthy as a consequence.

If ID or Creationism is a way to back door religion into Science than what religion is it? The religion of God? Is it Baptist? Catholic? No I submit it isn't a religion at all that stirs the ire of Atheists objections to the possibility but Christa phobia. That may be our fault and it may be their own but not allowing this kind of exploration would be our own compromise.

because in the end,,

we might BOTH

be wrong'

- Con




[edit on 2-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm

This is a common logical fallacy: I can't imagine it so it cannot be true. Thankfully, reality is not constrained to exist within the limits of our comprehension or our comfort with it. In other words, just because one does not possess the faculty to understand a complex system does not mean that they do not exist. The world does not cease to exist when a child closes their eyes!


No, you're wrong there guy and you are presumptuous in your assertion he can not fathom such a complex system. What he is suggesting isn't about disbelief coming from a lack of understanding. His is a statement about odds and the odds that something so perfectly put together in just the right spot at just the right time in just the right place at just the perfect angle at just the right distance spinning at just the right speed in just the right direction next to just the right moon having just the right size rotating just the right way, all that and much much more being done just the right way being just a hair off would kill us.

The odds of all that happening by accident?

That is what he finds hard

to believe

- Con



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Evidence has been continually posted in this thread for evolution, in fact i'll just quote myself rather than typing it out again:


originally posted by Chris McGee (and subsequently ignored)

Well, they found evolution happening here.

Twice i've asked folks on the creationist side of the discussion to both comment on the evidence here and provide some similarly detailed evidence for creationism and twice nothing has been forthcoming. Perhaps you would like to comment on it, Howie?


Creationists have demanded evidence of evolution repeatedly in this thread and it has been supplied in spades. Every point has been answered. The demands for evidence (any evidence) to support creationism have been ignored and deflected. This isn't a one way street, if you want creationism to be regarded as a scientific theory of equal standing to evolution then you need to do something more than attack the opposing theory. Put up or shut up.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by bigbert81
 



What is there to take back? Do you also wish to remove da Vinci's name from the Mona Lisa?


Wow, this quote is so ridiculous, it doesn't even deserve an answer.

What a joke.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Evidence has been continually posted in this thread for evolution, in fact i'll just quote myself rather than typing it out again:


originally posted by Chris McGee (and subsequently ignored)

Well, they found evolution happening here.

Twice i've asked folks on the creationist side of the discussion to both comment on the evidence here and provide some similarly detailed evidence for creationism and twice nothing has been forthcoming. Perhaps you would like to comment on it, Howie?


Every point has been answered. The demands for evidence (any evidence) to support creationism have been ignored and deflected. This isn't a one way street, if you want creationism to be regarded as a scientific theory of equal standing to evolution then you need to do something more than attack the opposing theory. Put up or shut up.




No and I have hundreds of posts on these boards to not only refute your typical vitriolic assumptions but destroy them "in spades"



Creationists have demanded evidence of evolution repeatedly in this thread and it has been supplied in spades.


None of that garbage you call evidence for Macro- Evolution is proof of anything and all I have seen is proof of micro evolution and more speculation more conjecturing subjectivism, another words more Atheist Dogma substantiated by "stuff" they "assume" or "just so" arguments.

It isn't my fault that the number of posts that allegedly illustrate some kind of evidence is not evidence for macro evolution but micro and I can't help that I know the difference when they try to pass it off as such much less pass it off as fact. Lack of real evidence in addition to their ignorance is not proof.

Tell me guy,, what did we look like in the last transitional form?
Share with me genius when did it happen last? Do you have any idea?
Wax poetic if you will the last time you saw ANY new species NOT new breed of Dog or any variation already inherent in that species DNA but something NEW where that creature carried the seed of another new species? Can you name one? Just ONE?

Try if you will and pontificate the virtues of your pathetic theory and show me one instance where you have REAL proof and I mean Proof prima facie ipso facto of another species having evolved.

Then if you would be so kind, the list of steps taken to substantiate that item of proof to see if it follows the exact steps taken in the Scientific Method. Please share with us even ONE piece of evidence that follows the same criteria for Science and the methodological protocols you so confidently assume gives you the right to think you have offered an iota of proof that exceeds that the Creationists have because if they have given none, that is what Ill show you the opposition has submitted as ALL of it is BUNK.



The corner stone of your silly little argument has always been the "Scientific Method" but even that you can not explain and Ill tell you why. IT DOESN'T EXIST!

You want proof smart guy, Ill show you the house of cards your whole theory is based on and again it is BUNK




"Provocative. . . . Bauer argues that science does not proceed by the scientific method. If it did, experiments would inspire hypotheses which would then be tested until they generated reliable theories. As Watson and Crick's work [on DNA] shows, an elegant idea is often a headier lure than mere facts."-- Newsweek

"Sound, sensible . . . and very easy to read. . . . I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who hasn't yet heard that the scientific method is a myth."-- Science

"This is a book that every science teacher should read and consider. It will certainly affect their views of what science really is and influence their teaching."-- The Science Teacher



Bunk


and more Bunk

Yet still even more what? yeah that's right, BUNK

So before you go telling people to put up or shut up,, you might want to clear yourself of the same suggestion because all you have got

is JOHNSON

- Con


[edit on 2-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Your rant contains exactly zero debunking of any of the evidence given for evolution and exactly zero evidence for creationism.

'Missing link'


Although the brain was small (410 cm³), its shape was rounded, unlike that of chimpanzees and gorillas, and more like a modern human brain. Also, the specimen showed short canine teeth, and the position of the foramen magnum was evidence of bipedal locomotion. All of these traits convinced Dart that the Taung baby was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form between apes and humans.

Another 20 years would pass before Dart's claims were taken seriously, following the discovery of more fossils that resembled his find. The prevailing view of the time was that a large brain evolved before bipedality. It was thought that intelligence on par with modern humans was a prerequisite to bipedalism.


Source


Originally posted by Horza in this thread

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome!

There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations.
Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

The changes that a pair of virus inserting at the exact same location is 1 in 3.000.000.000. And we share 16 pairs of virus inserting at perfectly matched location.

It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs providence the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.


The two links I posted above also contain plenty of proof for evolution.

Now, where's that proof from creationism?


edit: You do seem to have either a perverse sense of humour or a keen sense of irony, I found this is one of the links you posted:


The word “theory” can be used in two radically different ways. The first usage means something like law or rule, only much grander, namely a system of rules giving a coherent description and explanation of a broad topic. The other usage refers to a mere speculation. Remarkably, both versions are correct, and the ambiguity can be traced back more than 2000 years. It is best to avoid the word entirely when talking to non-scientists, and especially when debating with persons who can’t be trusted, since if you intend one meaning they’ll use the other meaning against you. Suggestion:
If you mean conjecture or speculation, don’t say “theory” — say conjecture or speculation.
If you mean comprehensive explanation, don’t say “theory” — say comprehensive explanation. In particular, Darwin’s “theory” of evolution should be called Darwin’s comprehensive explanation of evolution or words to that effect.








[edit on 2-6-2008 by Chris McGee]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Your rant contains exactly zero debunking of any of the evidence given for evolution and exactly zero evidence for creationism.

'Missing link'


Although the brain was small (410 cm³), its shape was rounded, unlike that of chimpanzees and gorillas, and more like a modern human brain. Also, the specimen showed short canine teeth, and the position of the foramen magnum was evidence of bipedal locomotion. All of these traits convinced Dart that the Taung baby was a bipedal human ancestor, a transitional form between apes and humans.

Another 20 years would pass before Dart's claims were taken seriously, following the discovery of more fossils that resembled his find. The prevailing view of the time was that a large brain evolved before bipedality. It was thought that intelligence on par with modern humans was a prerequisite to bipedalism.


Source


Originally posted by Horza in this thread

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome!

There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations.
Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

The changes that a pair of virus inserting at the exact same location is 1 in 3.000.000.000. And we share 16 pairs of virus inserting at perfectly matched location.

It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs providence the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.


The two links I posted above also contain plenty of proof for evolution.

Now, where's that proof from creationism?


edit: You do seem to have either a perverse sense of humour or a keen sense of irony, I found this is one of the links you posted:


The word “theory” can be used in two radically different ways. The first usage means something like law or rule, only much grander, namely a system of rules giving a coherent description and explanation of a broad topic. The other usage refers to a mere speculation. Remarkably, both versions are correct, and the ambiguity can be traced back more than 2000 years. It is best to avoid the word entirely when talking to non-scientists, and especially when debating with persons who can’t be trusted, since if you intend one meaning they’ll use the other meaning against you. Suggestion:
If you mean conjecture or speculation, don’t say “theory” — say conjecture or speculation.
If you mean comprehensive explanation, don’t say “theory” — say comprehensive explanation. In particular, Darwin’s “theory” of evolution should be called Darwin’s comprehensive explanation of evolution or words to that effect.


Don't say you have proof just because someone found a 13 million year old dead monkey

and don't say the DNA in the next one comes from our ancestor when the same odds he uses in his math are the same odds creationists like lennox used to shut out Dawkins in a debate. Zero debunking? I can't debunk evidence when you haven't given any.

Like I said all you got is

JOHNSON

- Con










[edit on 2-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 



The simplest and most powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction. Such reconstructions, especially when done using slowly-evolving protein sequences, are often quite robust and can be used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms (and even in some instances such as the recovered gene sequences of mammoths, Neanderthals or T. rex, the evolutionary history of extinct organisms). These reconstructed phylogenies recapitulate the relationships established through morphological and biochemical studies. The most detailed reconstructions have been performed on the basis of the mitochondrial genomes shared by all eukaryotic organisms, which are short and easy to sequence; the broadest reconstructions have been performed either using the sequences of a few very ancient proteins or by using ribosomal RNA sequence.


Another one from my source posted above.

How's that evidence for creationism coming along, any chance you can post it soon?



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
reply to post by Conspiriology
 



The simplest and most powerful evidence is provided by phylogenetic reconstruction. Such reconstructions, especially when done using slowly-evolving protein sequences, are often quite robust and can be used to reconstruct a great deal of the evolutionary history of modern organisms (and even in some instances such as the recovered gene sequences of mammoths, Neanderthals or T. rex, the evolutionary history of extinct organisms). These reconstructed phylogenies recapitulate the relationships established through morphological and biochemical studies. The most detailed reconstructions have been performed on the basis of the mitochondrial genomes shared by all eukaryotic organisms, which are short and easy to sequence; the broadest reconstructions have been performed either using the sequences of a few very ancient proteins or by using ribosomal RNA sequence.


Another one from my source posted above.

How's that evidence for creationism coming along, any chance you can post it soon?



That "stuff" you have given as a link to the most incredulous referance on the internet is old and has been refuted many times in this forum. Other than coming off as a contradiction that isn't proof of anything.

Explaining creationism isn't my responsibility when explaining things you will deliberatly not understand as you have in this thread.

That was the point of my first post and unless you are a Scientist I think Ill leave it up to Science but not the Science that has been kicking a dead horse since 1857. If you want to claim we evolved from that monkey than prove it. Dawkins saying things like "had we been there 7 million years ago we'd have seen a fish coming out of the water as something like an amphibian" is as asinine to us as saying that bronze age old Bible's explanation in Genesis is to you but Genesis for all intents and purposes can be tested and seen in real time now proven as FACT.

Humans come from Humans carruing the seed of their kind and no other kind. Apples having the seed of their kind and not that of any other fruit.

Alligators have looked like Alligators for millions of years and Sharks like Sharks for millions of years. If we are still around in a million, Humans will look like they do now. They may range in color and size but pretty much the same.

- Con



[edit on 2-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join